Quote from: wilburt on March 16, 2009, 08:30:29 AM

Quote from: RustCollege on March 14, 2009, 12:22:58 AM
How about Rust College  joinin da GSAC cuz next season its goin 2 be so really good games between Maryville an Rust cuz how young both teams r

I would think twice about that.  The GSAC does not have a great track record with its relationships with Black Colleges.

Even now that the school has wiped out the athletic department, you cannot see that this was a funding/commitment issue rather than a black/white issue?

Quote from: wilburt on March 12, 2009, 07:35:35 AM

Quote from: Ralph Turner on March 12, 2009, 12:05:14 AM
Interesting article from the DePauw paper...


http://media.www.thedepauw.com/media/storage/paper912/news/2009/02/20/Sports/Scac-Looks.For.Ways.To.Cut.Costs-3641137.shtml

I wonder if the GSAC is more acceptable than they were before the current economic situation.

I don't think so Ralph.  Both the SCAC and GSAC appear to try and keep together what they have already.

Maybe nothing will come of this.  But, I did hear that some of the eastern SCAC schools sent letters to the conference stating that they could not sustain the current travel arrangements and they would be withdrawing if things did not change.  I can only assume that this sparked the committee that the article discusses. 

I heard another completely unsubstantiated rumor that there is interest in making the SCAC a super conference with east and west conferences (not divisions).  Each conference could have enough schools to qualify for post season independently, but cost would be saved by having one administration.

Time will tell.

Ralph,
Your response is full of facts, but it really has nothing to do with the current debate.

I don't want to do the research, but remember there are more sports than men's basketball.  I am sure there have been successful pool b's in those sports (also a Maryville example but the Scots soccer team made the sweet 16 a couple years ago).

In any case, you could say that several conferences have not made a "good case" by not competing well in the tournament, and therefore should not have the same access as a strong conference.  I am nt saying that, but that is essentially what you are saying if you use tournament performance as an argument to give one group less access than another.

Lastly, this is not d1.  D1 budgets allow isolated schols to travel to join a conference.  With a few exceptions like SCAC and UAA, D3 conferences are organized and driven by proximity.  Not every school is so fortunate.

If the stated goal for pool b is to match the access ratios between pool a and pool b, then the NCAA is terrible at math.  Assuming Ralphs numbers are good, then the actual access ratio for pool b teams will be 26/2=13!  13 schools for each gauranteed spot, compared to 9.3 schools for every gauranteed spot in pool a.  Giving 3 pool b bids next year would make the pool be access ratio 26/3=8.67.  8.67 is much more comparable with 9.3 than 13!

And yes, of course a third pool b team could get a pool c.  Just like a conference non-champion can get a pool c.  Teams from conferences that qualify for pool c are getting bids beyond the 9.3 ratio.

Look, I understand that the power (rule makers) lies in the established conferences.  These people consider the pool b system generous already.  This is why they don't round up in the pool b calculation.  However, in many years the equality is just not there.  Maybe you should not round up if the calculation yields XX.5 because that could make the pool b access ratio significantly higher than pool a, and conference membership is encouraged in d3.  However, rounding down from a high fraction is silly.

Simple Solution: I propose rounding down for all cases where the fraction is .75 or below.  Anything above that gets rounded up.  This prevents giving too much pool b access while also preventing pool b's from being hosed.

Scots own CN

I know from reading your previous posts that you are coaching at Webb.  I used to be a head coach at Catholic (not basketball), so I saw an opportunity for a little good natured ribbing.  Webb would be a nice place to start a coaching career, so good luck.

KC22,
Do you plan to continue the well rehearsed Webb tradition of loosing to Catholic (not just referring to basketball)?

I wonder if spencer beaty knows that he scored on the infrequent poster scotswin in the recent alumni game.  He was lucky, I was screened...

That's what happens when you appoint the volleyball coach to Athletic Director.

The women have an AQ in the GSAC.  Does this lower the motivation to move to ar align with the USASAC?  I hope not.

Ralph,
Where are you listening?  I am listening to the Maryville radio station over the web and I am a few minutes behind your updates.

OL,
While I often quietly disagree with your opinions, I have two comments:

1.  That is a good line for the sorry MC guy that posted above.

2.  Your GSAC conference call parody was very entertaining.

Smedingly,

As has been stated on here before, Maryville is riding a NCAA record 9 straight years with at least one NCAA tournament victory (they had tournament wins in 1999 and 2004 prior to the losses you listed above).  Not that it is at all relavent, but the 1999 win was against SCAC champion Rose-Hulman, who has since changed conferences.

Quote from: coachwgh on February 12, 2008, 07:44:51 AM
I don't know if current Associate AD, Schram would be in the mix for this but from an outsiders point of view she does a marvelous job.

If we are making presumptions about politics and personal bias in decision making, I would not think that Miss Schram would be for a move to the USA South.  She is the volleyball coach.  She has an AQ in the GSAC that she gets almost every year.  I'd like to see a fresh face.